Strider AR

[Cliff Stamp]

...you yourself discovered that the pivot is the weak point of the design.

Yes, but the rest of the arguement doesn't follow because the AR doesn't have the same lock. As well the pivot point was only the weak point on the Chinook under direct loads from butt to tip, laterally or from spine to edge the pivot isn't the weak point on the Chinook.

-Cliff

 

[Gryffin]

Yes, but the rest of the arguement doesn't follow because the AR doesn't have the same lock.

Funny, no one brought up the topic of locks. I certainly didn't. But, of course, you just have to steer the conversation in that direction, so you can copy & paste that tired old "scope of work" diatribe of yours. Or do you have that set up as a macro now? :jerkit:

You never tire of telling us that all liner- and frame-locks are bad because you personally have demonstrated that you can cause them to fail by loading the lock, white-knuckling the handle, and twisting the lock with your fingers on the release tab, in the direction is was designed to release.

Big whoop-dee-doo, I can do that, too. Heck, I can make a lockback fail, too, by pressing the lock release while loading the lock, or by pulling back the Axis bar on a Benchmade while loading the lock, etc. But anyone with more than two functional brain cells would avoid deliberately disengaging any locking mechanism under load like that.

Likewise, I can come up with a grip and loading condition where I can release the Manix's lock under load, too. As I've pointed out to you before, any locking mechanism that can be easily disengaged deliberately by the user, can also be disengaged accidently. Used with care, any properly designed and executed lock can be used safely; any lock used improperly can cause injury.

So, to get this discussion back on track... short of deliberately releasing the locking mechanism, can you offer any sort of realistic scenario under which the Strider AR would suffer structural failure, where the Manix would not? If so, I can't wait to hear it. :yawn:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the lock on the Manix is infallible, while that of the Strider AR is not. Happy now? I still maintain that, used with a modicum of common sense, the AR is capable of far more stressful use than the Manix.

As well the pivot point was only the weak point on the Chinook under direct loads from butt to tip, laterally or from spine to edge the pivot isn't the weak point on the Chinook.

Still, it did fail first under that loading, right? The lockbar bears a large portion of that sort of butt-to-tip load, so the pivot wasn't even bearing the entire load. Yet it failed.

Laterally, the pivot isn't directly stressed; the pivot area is supported in that direction by the liners and scales. The fact that the pivot didn't fail there proves nothing.

As for "spine to edge" loading, you didn't test to failure, so how can you say definitively that the pivot wouldn't have failed first in that mode, too? Unlike the AR, the Manix's blade pivot screw and lockbar pivot screw are the same size; however, the lockbar is also supported by the steel backspacer, so it's unlikely to fail before the pivot does.

Let me save you the trouble of replying:

It doesn't matter that the AR is mechanically twice as strong in every dimension than the Manix; it's a liner lock, and since I can deliberately unlock it under load, the Manix, with it's superior front lock, has a greater Scope of Work(TM) than any liner lock, despite the fact that the lock bar lacks a Boye Dent to prevent accidental disengagement of the lock, and has an undersized pivot screw, and a thin flat-ground tip.

:jerkit:

 

[Gryffin]

I think both are more tough than is practical anyhow.

Depends on what you wanna do with it. The OP sounds like he wants a folding crowbar!

the usefulness of a manix compared to an AR far, far outweighs any differences in toughness.

Yeah, I tend to agree. Unless you intend to regularly field-dress sedans, the Manix is as much knife as just about anyone could need.

The manix has a leaf shaped full flat ground blade that cuts pretty damn well in my opinion, nearly as well as my paramilitary. The grind on the AR looks like a splitting ax. I think the manix beats the strider in the cutting department hands down, NO comparison

Not sure I agree. The Strider's also full-flat ground, but significantly thicker. It slices a whole lot better than it would if it were saber-ground, say. The biggest difference I see is that (on the two I have to compare, at least) the Strider is almost twice as thick just behind the edge grind than the Manix is. This is a detriment to fine slicing, but makes for a stronger edge.

I have a strict principle: no giving money to people that reference their genitalia when speaking to customers.

LOL!! Fair enough.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Funny, no one brought up the topic of locks.

The origional poster wanted a "fixed blade" feel, the lock is kind of integral to that ability. In fact it is integral to any comparison of folding knives as it also influences ease of opening/closing and general action of the folding knife so it is relevant even beyond durability aspects. It it hardly "off topic" to discuss the locks in a comparison of two folding knives.

...and twisting the lock with your fingers on the release tab, in the direction is was designed to release.

This usually isn't necessary, the torque itself can move the lock, some times very easily, as in the knife can be stuck in a weed or a piece of cardboard.

...can you offer any sort of realistic scenario under which the Strider AR would suffer structural failure, where the Manix would not?

Yes, similar to how the liner lock on the Buck/Strider disengaged and then cracked. The blade is stronger on the AR as it is thicker, this strength however is of no functional benefit if the lock is unable to take the same loads and breaks/disengages at a lower level.

However this isn't central to your arguement which claims the AR is so vastly superior there is no comparison, so the Manix doesn't have to be more durable to negate your arguement, it doesn't even have to equal the performance, it just has to be in a similar class.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the lock on the Manix is infallible ...

It isn't, lockbacks have issues with accidental releases due to direct pressure on the lock release, this makes some work problematic like hard stabs in an ice pick grip. Often the ergonomics or point presentation make this the most ergonomic/secure grip for that work so you can't just swap. The lock bar cutouts help here and the additional cross locks fix it.

Still, it did fail first under that loading, right?

Yes, as noted, that is likely a weak point there.

The lockbar bears a large portion of that sort of butt-to-tip load, so the pivot wasn't even bearing the entire load. Yet it failed.

The lock bar had been effected by previous work to the point it was visibly opened up, the entire mechanism was significantly effected so it wasn't supporting loads optimally and stress was falling on areas not intended to take them. Note as well that the level of work which the Chinook was subjected to will not be supported by Strider for use of their knives. I asked.

Laterally, the pivot isn't directly stressed; the pivot area is supported in that direction by the liners and scales. The fact that the pivot didn't fail there proves nothing.

Yes, it proves exactly that, it isn't the weak point and thus having a stronger pivot doesn't make the knife any more capable there, this is also one of the main ways a knife fails, especially through the tip.

As for "spine to edge" loading, you didn't test to failure, so how can you say definitively that the pivot wouldn't have failed first in that mode, too?

I batoned it until the lock bar started to open, the knife was getting functionally effected with no damage to the pivot. It was pushed far past the point where it would be either serviced or retired. I have seen the same behavior in other lock backs when pushed further.

-Cliff

 

[Gryffin]

Oh, one more thing... if it's really a tough-as-woodpecker-lips folder you want, you might want to look at the Strider GB. It's the same knife as the AR, but with a tanto blade grind. Have a look at the GB vs. the AR:

http://www.tadgear.com/edged tools/strider_ar_gb.htm

I'm looking at an AR right here, and the closest thing to a weak spot on it is the blade tip. In fact, a previous passaround participant managed to break about 1/8" off the end of this one. (Strider reground and refinished it.) That's a problem with fullly flat ground blades, they get thin out at the tip.

Now, I haven't handled a GB, but just from the grind lines, it looks like the tanto's tip will be significantly stronger. If you have any intention of prying, digging, etc. with the Strider, the GB might be a better choice.

 

[oteyj]

You really can't compare a Manix/Chinook to an AR. Nor can you compare a Strider to a Buck/Strider. Striders are overbuilt nearly indestructible. In general you get what you pay for, and $350 will buy you a custom grade folder. Get an AR or GB, they are among the best money can buy.

 

[samhain73]

Another argument about folder toughness that goes nowhere. Cliff, you seem to have some freinds at Spyderco, and they seem to be willing to let forums members design knives(2 this year) How about YOU design a folder? You've tested enough to know how to comprimise cutting and toughness, and how to make a lock almost bulletproof. I think that if you put the lock of a Manix with a thicker blade and more robust point, and a bigger pivot, it would be the ULTIMATE folder. You owe it to us all to do this Cliff. Then no one would have to debate you any longer.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

That's a problem with fullly flat ground blades, they get thin out at the tip.

You can esily run a full flat grind with no distal taper and leave the point with a huge cross section and massive strength, there are many knives ground that way.

As for the Buck/Strider, the one I had ran with a blade of 3/16" thick which was sabre ground, no distal taper. The blade profile is much stronger than the AR, the handle strength isn't an issue either.

That is mainly hype, even FRN handles are very difficult to break, you can for example snap off an Endura blade and the handle will be fine. The handle simply nevers take the focus of the loads.

Simply being overbuilt with lots of thickness and weight doesn't equal strength or toughness, it doesn't matter what the stronger point rates, it is where the knife is weakest that counts because that is what limits performance.

-Cliff

 

[Gryffin]

The origional poster wanted a "fixed blade" feel, the lock is kind of integral to that ability.

OK, fine, we'll play it your way, if you insist.

the torque itself can move the lock, some times very easily, as in the knife can be stuck in a weed or a piece of cardboard.

Weed or cardboard? With a total POS $2 Chinese liner lock, perhaps; or are you actually claiming that twisting a Strider AR while wedged in a weed can cause lock failure?

What you're describing requires the entire handle, and hence the liner, to flex significantly. I'd love to see you do that with the Strider.

Quote:
...can you offer any sort of realistic scenario under which the Strider AR would suffer structural failure, where the Manix would not?

Yes, similar to how the liner lock on the Buck/Strider disengaged and then cracked.

Which Buck/Strider is that? I've got an 882, and there's no way you can compare the two locks. The AR's locking liner is (if memory serves) about four times thicker, and hence mechanically stronger.

If you're going to start citing your infamous knife tests for support, I'd like to point two major flaws I see in your "testing" practices:

• The statistically-questionable sample size (one). You assume that your results on a single sample are indicative of every example of that model out there, and don't account for variability in materials or fitment. How can you know the Buck/Strider you cite didn't have a non-typical flaw in the locking liner? You obviously feel that the front lock of the Manix is far more secure, but just recently a BFC member posted here that two out of three Manixes (Manices?) he'd bought failed a light spine whack test. Heck, his sample size was three times as large as yours, so are we to assume that all Manix locks are faulty?
  
• Cumulative effects of near-destructive tests. Rather than test each aspect of a knife separately, you test one aspect to the point where you potentially compromise the integrity of other aspects, and then proceed to further test an already damaged knife, until the cumulative damage causes failure. As you yourself point out above, you beat the Chinook until the lock was damaged, before testing it to final failure. If you had started with that last test, don't you think the results might've been different? Likewise with the Buck/Strider, isn't it possible that previous near-destructive testing led to the failure of the locking liner?

Sorry, but I cannot accept as proof your conclusion that since a single unspecified Buck/Strider lock failed after significant near-destructive abuse, that it logically follows that a random sample of a different knife entirely, i.e. the Strider AR in question, has an inherently faulty locking mechanism. What you state as fact is nothing but conjecture on top of anecdote on top of questionable testing. :jerkit:

The blade is stronger on the AR as it is thicker, this strength however is of no functional benefit if the lock is unable to take the same loads and breaks/disengages at a lower level.

I agree completely. However, you have yet to prove to me that the locking mechanism of the Strider is weaker than that of the Manix.

If we assume that the locks are at least comparable, then there's no question which is the stronger knife. The AR is built thicker, heavier and stronger throughout, compared to the Manix.

However this isn't central to your arguement which claims the AR is so vastly superior there is no comparison, so the Manix doesn't have to be more durable to negate your arguement, it doesn't even have to equal the performance, it just has to be in a similar class.

Funny, I don't recall making such an "argument". I do, however, claim that, yes, from a structural standpoint, the Strider AR is a stronger knife than the Manix.

"Vastly superior"? Nope. Structurally stronger? Yes, I believe so.

Let's look at how we might stress both knives:

• Push Cut: saber grip on handle, blade edge on solid stop, increase downward pressure on handle. This stresses the blade edge, blade pivot, and stop pin/lockbar. All of these stressed components are stronger on the Strider, with the exception of the stop pin, although it apears to be about as sturdy as the pivot or lockbar pins of the Manix. Which knife do you think will break first?
• Prying, shallow: clamp 1/2" of blade tip in a vise, apply increasing distributed load laterally at handle. This stresses the blade tip primarily, secondarily the rest of the blade, handles at the tang, and the blade pivot in tension. Again, all of the stressed components are far more sturdy on the Strider. WHich knife do you think will fail first?
• Prying, deep: clamp 2/3 of the blade length in a vice, load as above. Ditto on the component strengths. Which knife will fail first?
• Hard thrust: in an ice-pick grip, the Manix's lock would be less secure, as you admitted; in a saber grip, I'll concede the AR's lock might be less secure; as I've pointed out to you before, either lock can be disengaged by user negligence. Either way, apply increasing pressure; the blade pivot is primarily stressed, the stop pin/lockbar secondarily. The Strider's pivot pin is sefveral times stronger than that of the Manix; which knife do you say would fail first?
• Twisting (your fave): 2/3 the length of the blade clamped, increasing hand torsion applied to the handle, taking care to NOT disengage the lock. Primarily stress on the blade and handle, secondarily on the blade pivot, in tension. As you mention, the AR's blade is much thicker, as are the handle's liners and scales, and the blade pivot. Which knife will fail first, Cliff?
• Downward Bend: 2/3 the length of the blade clamped, increasing distributed pressure applied to the handle in the direction of closing, primarily stressing the locking mechanism and the blade pivot. I'll grant you, this one might actually be close: the Manix's pivot would likely shear before the lock did, based on what Sal Glesser has stated occurs in the testing of his MBC-rated locks; it's possible the Strider's locking liner could fail before the Manix's pivot, but there's no way to know for sure other than to actually stage this sort of test.

Note that in only the last case does the locking mechanism take the primary load. (The hard thrust puts a lesser portion of the load on the lock.) So even if I were to concede your claim that the Strider's lock will fail at a lower level of stress (which, as I state above, I don't), it's still obvious that in all other loading scenarios but the last, the AR is the stronger knife. :thumbup:

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: I'm not a Strider fanboy. I especially don't care for the AR: I had it for a passaround, and found that it's too big, heavy, and uncomfortable for EDC use, horribly impractical for anything other than "hard use". As I stated previously, I think that the Manix is more than enough for just about anybody; but the original poster expressed a strong interest in the AR, for exactly the reasons I dislike it. He wanted as tough a knife as he could get; I feel the AR is a stronger design than the Manix, hence a better choice to meet his needs and desires, and stated so.

(regarding lockback limitations) The lock bar cutouts help here and the additional cross locks fix it.

Good to see you admit that lockbacks have their own security issues. Lock bar cutouts like Spyderco's "Boye Dent" are a great help; however, the Manix we're discussing doesn't have it, so you're actually undercutting your own argument that the Manix is more secure than the Strider.

As for "cross locks", I assume you're talking about your beloved ER Fulcrum folder, the one you beat me over the head with in another thread recently. You do have a point, such a secondary locking device adds security and safety; however, that cross lock is only found on Extrame Ratio and Dark Ops knives AFAIK. Oddly, too, in the same discussion you rejected the CRK&T LAWKS secondary lock as worthless, when functionally it does the same thing!

Sure, the LAWKS could fail under abusive loads directly against the lock, although I can't envison a case where such a thing could be done other than deliberately; and either lock is just another mechanical part that can fail either through user error, manufacturing flaws, field damage, etc.

If you feel confident enough in your Fulcrum to treat it like a fixed blade knife, with no regard for it's mechanical limitations. by all means do so. I couldn't care less how many fingers you have left when you die. But advocating to others that it's acceptable behavior is just plain irresponsible; you sound like a shooter who claims that because a certain auto pistol has a firing pin safety, grip safety and a manual safety, waving it at people while pulling the trigger is perfectly safe and acceptable.

Yes, as noted, that is likely a weak point there.

You agree with me? Are you positive? Sure you don't want to reconsider?

 

[Gryffin]

You can esily run a full flat grind with no distal taper and leave the point with a huge cross section and massive strength, there are many knives ground that way.

Maybe on many customs, but I haven't seen a factory knife with that grind, yet. I agree (twice in one night?) that it would solve the problem nicely, and with modern CNC grinding gear, I can't imagine why it isn't done more.

More to the point, neither the Manix nor the Strider AR are ground that way. So my point still stands: for a tough hard-use blade tip, the Strider GB's tanto-ground blade might be a better choice.

Or do you feel like argiuing that with me, too?

As for the Buck/Strider, the one I had ran with a blade of 3/16" thick which was sabre ground, no distal taper. The blade profile is much stronger than the AR...

Think you could give me a model number? It sure doesn't sound like anything Buck's selling these days.

Oh, and I didn't have an issue with the blade, it's the liner I was trying to compare, the liner you say failed. What material was it made from? What guage?

The handle simply nevers take the focus of the loads.

Ah, but as you claim, torquing the handle could cause a liner lock to fail if the handle flexes. So perhaps those "overbuilt" handles are there to preclude just the sort of failure you warn about?

Simply being overbuilt with lots of thickness and weight doesn't equal strength or toughness, it doesn't matter what the stronger point rates, it is where the knife is weakest that counts because that is what limits performance.

Agreed. (THREE?!?!) Which is why I find it so odd that both the AR and Manix both have blade with such thin, weak tip grinds. Hence my admonition.

 

[SIFU1A]

i have an AR, and a manix, and though both are good imho the AR is lots more heavy duty, i dont care what anyone else says, thats my opinion and ya are welcome to yours, but, in the end, thats all it is, an opinion.

also IIRC the AR/GB where out when the buck/strider stuff appeared,

 

[Cliff Stamp]

[flat grind with no distal taper]

...with modern CNC grinding gear, I can't imagine why it isn't done more.

It is less work to leave out a distal taper, most prefer a taper to produce a fine tip while giving a strong base near the choil. It makes the knife more versatile and there are also balance issues with larger knives, and likely with folders with very large blades as well. You don't tend to find flat grinds with no taper because no taper generally implies a cheaper construction and this is more suited to shallow sabre hollow grinds.

The Buck/Strider I referenced is this knife :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/images/strider_folder_side.jpg

It has no distal taper, nor even a point taper, it was similar to the old style points on the hollow ground models like the WB, they went from full stock to point in a small fraction of an inch. Very strong blade profile, most of it is at full stock. However due to the lock instability the massive blade is of little use because any work which takes advantage of the blades strength is likely to disengage or even break the lock.

Weed or cardboard? With a total POS $2 Chinese liner lock, perhaps;

Those two came from Joe, you can ask him for the details, being the guy who wrote the FAQ he got a lot of reports over the years as well as personally demonstrated problems with spine impacts and torques, mainly on liners. He generally does not do the extreme levels of force testing that is often implied by some when complaining about such work however still had lots of problems, and yes even with high end locks.

What you're describing requires the entire handle, and hence the liner, to flex significantly.

No, it is an issue with the liner, just like you can release the liner with your finger without causing the handle to flex at all.

The statistically-questionable sample size (one). You assume that your results on a single sample are indicative of every example of that model out there ...

Not only do I not do that, I take many steps to confirm this isn't the case by talking to the makers/manufacturers and comparing the results to other knives I have used. Note in this particular case Mike Strider confirmed that the behavior I saw with the Buck/Strider was to be expected so it isn't a one shot sample any more.

If I use a knife and see performance for which the maker contends are not representative then obviously I got a flawed sample so I either have it fixed or replaced and repeat the work. I have done both at times, just like I have done larger sample testing. It takes awhile of repeated behavior before I come to a fairly set viewpoint.

I didn't use one liner/integral and then write them off, I used many, of varying costs as well talked to guys like Joe and Steve who have done more work still, and then discussed it with makers/manufactures looking to find someone who would directly say their product didn't have those problems (in public of course).

In general low sample testing is less than ideal, but you have to live with it at times (and yes even in published work, monetary costs usually). With my work with knives it is a problem at times, I used a folder recently and the lock loosened during light chopping, it was a new line so the first thing that comes to mind is a potential problem.

So do I jump on the forums and exclaim it is defective, no. I tried two others from the same line, no problem, even pushed them further. I note all of that in the review as well as the maker contact information, and lately have been adding in the pass around threads. If I didn't have the other models on hand I'd ask the maker and talk to guys I know who use them significantly and see how they fared.

Of course even when the makers don't contend the results I compare them to other knives and steels, it doesn't need to be the same thing as many steels are in the same class so the behavior should not be dramatically different. Plus you can also compare different steels, if you note a problem with steel A and don't see the problem in B and B is worse than A materials wise, then that shows there is likely a problem with A.

Cumulative effects of near-destructive tests.

This is a problem, A. G. Russell wanted me to do work with some Deerhunters to show just what it would take to break them, the first thing that comes to mind is any impact work will lower any flex work. I have a couple of trainers (folding knives) I will be looking at lock security with soon with my brother and I want to see if you can do full dynamic stabs on a moving target, back cuts on a moving target, static spine impacts with a baton, and actual blocks with the spine (this is how I would rank them in order of increasing difficulty for the folder). All of these could cause the lock to release, and at very least could lower the performance in follow up work. Thus I'll have to take this into consideration.

Likewise with the Buck/Strider, isn't it possible that previous near-destructive testing led to the failure of the locking liner?

The liner failed due to a shear across the face, it had not been subjected to significant impacts before, or at any time, or used for prying or other singificant work, it was in fact just just used to cut rope and woods to determine its cutting ability NIB and with a modified edge profile. I could do the same thing with a SAK. As noted, the behavior of the lock under the torques+prying was noted to be as expected from the designer of the knife, Mick Strider, he noted this publically on the forums.

It doesn't matter how thick the liner is either, this doesn't make them significantly more stable, nor would it help prevent the face cracking as seen on the Buck/Strider. Raw strength is rarely an issue, it is security that usually limits use. Huge thick liners are more for speed hole effect than functionality, very thin liners can be very secure, Joe noted this years ago.

Note that in only the last case does the locking mechanism take the primary load.

It doesn't need to take the primary load, it doesn't even need to take a significant fraction of it. I have seen lots of releases where the blade never flexed at all, let alone significantly. Again, the releases that people talk about don't require forces which are of the same class as what is required to damage the blade or handle, they are not even of the same class, hence the ability to unlock with a pop off the palm or just twisting in cardboard. the disengagements I have seen happen in use that I easily could do with the Kershaw Vapor and not damage the blade.

... so you're actually undercutting your own argument that the Manix is more secure than the Strider.

No knife is directly 100% better without exception than any other knife, simply because every material and geometry has various advantages and disadvantages. Lockbacks can make certain grips problematic if the fingers come across the bar (ice pick), liners/integrals do the same thing and the grips are generally the more common ones (hammer and sabre) and they have the additional problems with impacts/torques which in general are not issues with lockbacks, thus overall they are more secure.

Oddly, too, in the same discussion you rejected the CRK&T LAWKS secondary lock as worthless, when functionally it does the same thing!

No it doesn't because it is thin unhardened steel whereas the bolt on the Fulcrum is a hardened very thick pin. That is like saying a mild steel blade and a hardened tool steel blade functionally do the same thing.

But advocating to others that it's acceptable behavior is just plain irresponsible; you sound like a shooter who claims that because a certain auto pistol has a firing pin safety, grip safety and a manual safety, waving it at people while pulling the trigger is perfectly safe and acceptable.

There is a difference, the safety on a gun is just that a safety, unlike the locks on an extension ladder for example which are needed for the ladder to actually function. You use these things all the time and if they fail you are at risk of losing more than your fingers.

While some will take the approach that locks on folders should be treated as they can disengage at any time, this is not how locks in general are expected to behave, there is a large difference between a safety and a lock, and knife manufactures/makers promote them as locks.

Mick Strider for example advocates extreme voilent jack hammer stabs to the face (a hard target which will result in a violent impact of steel on bone) for martial purposes and sells tactical/fighting folders. This can put a very heavy load directly against the lock as well as a very sharp and dynamic spine impact and torque as well.

I don't also advocate that you use a knife in a particular manner, I do what I do after evaluating the knife and take steps when doing so to account for failure. Once I know what it can do I use it accordingly. Same as I do with anything I depend on in general, knives are no different than any other tool in that regard.

What I do advocate is that makers/manufacturers should have their knives live up to the ways they are promoted, locks and everything else.

-Cliff

 

[oldnbusted]

I would definitely buy one if it wouldn't fleece the pockets of the owner of Strider knives. I have a strict principle: no giving money to people that reference their genitalia when speaking to customers.

I'm sure Mick will survive. He's not the sort to be desperate to have the custom of people who like to insult his products without the facts, nor those who side with them.

 

[rackness]

once again another thread has been cliffjacked. taking it the total wrong direction.

i have and ar and it is an awsome blade. super tough beast of a folder. you could take a car door off with the thing if you felt so inclined and for that i love it. the folks at strider knives are top notch and they stand behind their products 100%. hard to go wrong with a company like that.

but in a knife my edc is a lg reg sebbie. anything short of car door removal the seb is tops. i own many knives but i carry a sebenza (they all get pocket time but my right front pocket is reserved). best damn knife i own its is not the prettiest or the coolest or the most high tech but it works when i need it flawlessly everytime.

just my 2 pennies.

if you have a chance to attend a knife show or a brick and morter check out as many blades as you can and find what is right for you. spec sheets are not everything in knives.

good luck
-Rackness

 

[powells85]

I submit this for some further reading and insight on the AR's brother (GB)

 

[rackness]

I submit this for some further reading and insight on the AR
Today 07:39 PM

just to clarify said test was conducted on a strider GB not an AR. same blade material same lock mechanism pivot etc. drop point vs tanto blade style.

pretty cool review none the less thanks for the link.


*edit* my apologies i need to learn how to read i totaly missed your statement about the test being on a GB.